5 Damning Pieces of P. Diddy Evidence That Could Send Him to Prison

Summary

In this compelling discussion, legal experts analyze the intricacies of a high-profile court case, focusing on the significance of witness testimonies and the strategies employed by the defense. Key themes include the potential motivations behind witness statements, the impact of video evidence on credibility, and the dynamics of jury selection amidst public scrutiny. The conversation underscores the delicate balance between legal strategy and the pursuit of justice, inviting viewers to consider the complexities involved in prosecuting serious allegations. Overall, the insights shed light on the legal processes at play, enhancing audience engagement with the ongoing narrative.

Takeaways

• 😀 Public exposure to the case can influence jury selection, but not all jurors are familiar with the details.
• 🔍 Witness testimony is crucial, especially from alleged victims and co-conspirators, in shaping the outcome of the trial.
• ⚖️ The defense may challenge the credibility of alleged victims by looking for inconsistencies in their stories.
• 💰 Financial motives, such as prior civil suits, may be a focus for the defense in questioning witness reliability.
• 👥 Co-conspirators' motivations for testifying can stem from self-preservation, leading to potential blame-shifting.
• 📹 Strong video evidence significantly bolsters the prosecution's case and diminishes the effectiveness of defense arguments.
• 🤝 The discussion reflects on the complexities of legal strategies employed by both prosecution and defense teams.
• 📅 The timeline of events and witness interactions will play a critical role in the jury's understanding of the case.
• 📰 The importance of media portrayal and its impact on public perception of high-profile cases was emphasized.
• 🎙️ Engaging experts and analysts provides deeper insights into the legal processes and implications for all parties involved.

Q & A

What is the primary concern regarding the potential suppression of evidence in the case against Sha Colmes?

The primary concern is that the jury may not be able to see crucial evidence that could impact their decision-making. There is a debate about whether suppression is justified, especially if the jury pool has not been contaminated by media exposure.

How does the guest suggest the defense might approach witness testimony?

The defense is expected to scrutinize witness testimony for inconsistencies and potential motives, particularly focusing on the credibility of the alleged victims and any financial or legal motivations for cooperating with the prosecution.

What role does video evidence play in the anticipated trial strategy?

Video evidence is seen as crucial, as it can significantly strengthen the prosecution's case. The presence of clear video footage would diminish the effectiveness of the defense's attempts to discredit witness testimony based on motives.

Why is it important for the jury to be impartial in this trial?

An impartial jury is essential to ensure a fair trial, as biases from media coverage could affect jurors' perceptions and lead to unjust conclusions about the case.

What types of witnesses are expected to testify in this trial?

The expected witnesses include alleged victims who may claim to have been harmed, as well as potential co-conspirators who might provide insight into the actions and behaviors of Sha Colmes and his inner circle.

What could undermine the credibility of the alleged victims according to the discussion?

The defense might argue that the alleged victims have financial motivations, such as previous civil suits, or that their behaviors contradict their claims of abuse, thereby undermining their credibility.

How might the testimony of co-conspirators be viewed during the trial?

Testimony from co-conspirators may be scrutinized for motives related to self-preservation, as they might seek to shift blame to Sha Colmes to reduce their own legal consequences.

What is the significance of the phrase 'no harm, no foul' in relation to jury selection?

The phrase suggests that if jurors are not aware of the case details due to a lack of media exposure, their lack of knowledge could prevent any prejudice, allowing for a fairer jury selection process.

What is the overarching theme of the conversation in the transcript?

The overarching theme revolves around the complexities of trial dynamics, focusing on the importance of evidence, witness credibility, and the potential implications for the defense and prosecution strategies.

Why is it essential for the legal community to closely monitor the developments in this case?

Monitoring the case developments is essential for understanding the legal principles at play, the effectiveness of various strategies, and the broader implications for future cases involving similar issues.

Outlines

00:00

📜 Understanding Jury Selection and Legal Strategies

This part discusses the importance of jury selection in a trial, particularly in sensitive cases involving serious allegations. It highlights the potential effects of publicity on the jury pool, emphasizing the defense's strategy to mitigate any preconceived notions jurors might hold. The conversation also touches on the significance of witness credibility, especially in cases where individuals may have financial motives or previous allegations. The panelists express concern about the challenges of selecting an impartial jury and the impact of media exposure on the proceedings.

05:02

🔍 Analyzing Witness Testimonies and Evidence Impact

The second part centers on the critical role of witness testimony in determining the trial's outcome against Sha Colmes. The conversation outlines the defense's approach to cross-examining witnesses, particularly those who may have motives related to financial gain or fear of prosecution. It discusses the strategies the defense may employ to discredit testimonies by highlighting inconsistencies or questionable motives. The presence of strong video evidence is emphasized as a pivotal factor that could undermine the defense's arguments, suggesting that tangible proof can outweigh the credibility concerns of witnesses negotiating deals with the prosecution.

Keywords

💡Witness Testimony

Witness testimony refers to statements made by individuals who provide evidence regarding their observations or experiences related to a case. In the context of the video, witness testimony is crucial for establishing the credibility of allegations against Sha Colm. The speaker emphasizes the need to scrutinize the motives of these witnesses, especially if they have made deals with the government, as their testimonies can significantly sway the jury's perception.

💡Suppression of Evidence

Suppression of evidence involves the legal process of excluding certain evidence from being presented in court, typically to protect the rights of the accused or ensure a fair trial. The speaker raises concerns about why certain evidence might be suppressed, suggesting that it may not be justified if the jury pool is not contaminated by prior knowledge. This concept highlights the tension between maintaining trial integrity and public interest.

💡Co-conspirators

Co-conspirators are individuals who are alleged to be involved in a criminal conspiracy with another person. In the video, the speaker discusses the testimonies of potential co-conspirators and the defense's strategy to challenge their motivations, suggesting that fear of prosecution may drive them to testify against Colm. This reflects the broader theme of accountability and the dynamics of plea deals in legal proceedings.

💡Victim Credibility

Victim credibility pertains to the trustworthiness of individuals making allegations of wrongdoing. The speaker indicates that the defense will seek to undermine the credibility of alleged victims by highlighting inconsistencies in their statements or potential financial motives, such as past civil suits. This concept is vital in the context of the trial, as the jury's perception of the victims' credibility can heavily influence the case's outcome.

💡Jury Pool

The jury pool is the group of potential jurors from which a jury is selected for a trial. The speaker notes that not all jurors may be aware of the case details, suggesting that a fair jury could still be formed despite media coverage. This concept underscores the importance of ensuring a jury is unbiased and able to evaluate the evidence presented during the trial.

💡Video Evidence

Video evidence is any footage that can be used in court to support or refute claims made during a trial. The discussion in the video highlights how strong video evidence could diminish the relevance of witness testimonies, particularly if the footage contradicts their claims or confirms co-conspirators' testimonies. This concept emphasizes the power of visual evidence in shaping a jury's understanding of the facts.

💡Cross-examination

Cross-examination is the process by which a lawyer questions a witness brought by the opposing party to challenge their statements or credibility. The speaker anticipates that the defense will employ this strategy to scrutinize the testimonies of witnesses, particularly focusing on their motivations for testifying. This concept is crucial as it illustrates the adversarial nature of the legal system and the importance of rigorous questioning in uncovering the truth.

💡Motive

Motive refers to the reason behind a person's actions, particularly in the context of criminal behavior. In the video, discussions about witness motivations, whether for financial gain or fear of prosecution, highlight the role motive plays in assessing the reliability of testimonies. Understanding the motives of witnesses can provide critical insights into the credibility of their claims and the dynamics of the case.

💡Financial Incentives

Financial incentives are rewards or benefits that may influence an individual's decisions or actions. The speaker discusses the potential for alleged victims to have financial motives, such as pursuing civil suits, which could impact their testimonies. This concept is relevant to the trial as it raises questions about whether testimonies are influenced by personal gain, thus affecting their authenticity.

💡Trial Dynamics

Trial dynamics refer to the various elements and interactions that influence the proceedings and outcomes of a trial. The video outlines how witness testimonies, evidence suppression, and jury perceptions all interplay in the context of Sha Colm's trial. Understanding these dynamics is essential for grasping how cases are built and deconstructed in the courtroom, ultimately affecting justice.

Highlights

The conversation emphasizes the balance between transparency and legal protocols in high-profile trials.

The potential impact of witness testimony on the outcome of the trial is underscored, particularly from alleged victims and co-conspirators.

Concerns are raised about jury pool contamination, suggesting that not all jurors are exposed to media coverage.

The defense strategy will likely include questioning the credibility of witnesses by looking for inconsistencies in their accounts.

Witnesses who filed civil suits may have financial motivations that could influence their testimonies.

Co-conspirators testifying against the main defendant may do so out of fear of their own prosecution, complicating the defense's position.

The strength of video evidence could overshadow witness credibility, as visual documentation may provide irrefutable proof.

The importance of understanding the motivations behind witness testimonies is emphasized to anticipate the defense's approach.

There's a suggestion that strong video evidence could diminish the relevance of witness motivations and their past actions.

The discussion highlights the dynamic nature of trial evidence, indicating that ongoing developments could shift perspectives.

Potential discrepancies between witness statements and documented evidence are crucial for the defense's case.

The interplay between witness testimony and video evidence can significantly influence jurors' perceptions.

The conversation concludes with appreciation for legal insights, reinforcing the complexity of navigating such trials.

Understanding the motivations of all parties involved will be key for the jury to evaluate the credibility of testimonies.

This analysis of witness credibility and motivations is vital for a fair and balanced legal process.

Transcripts

as part of this investigation in March

of this year Special Agents from HSI

executed search warrants at coles's

residences in Miami and Los Angeles they

also executed a warrant for comes'

electronic devices during those searches

agent sees evidence of the crimes

charged in this indictment let's dive

into the potential evidence in the Shawn

Colmes criminal case how strong is it

Howes the defense fight against it well

we're going to discuss all of this with

evidence expert Jules Epstein welcome to

sidebar presented by law on crime I'm

Jesse

Weber hey everybody this is a law on

crime legal alert so recent Studies have

uncovered a link between Depo pra aka

the Depo shot and an increased risk of

brain tumors lawsuits are being filed

against fiser the manufacturer of Depo

pra alleging that they failed to warn

patients and doctors about this risk and

instead Rush the drug to Market while

downplaying the adverse event reports so

if you've been diagnosed with the brain

tumor or you're experiencing symptoms

like headaches vision problems seizures

or other neurological issues you may

qualify for compensation and wrri and

schy one of our legal sponsors is a

national firm helping those injured to

ensure their claims are thoroughly

presented visit depos shot claims.com

sidebar to answer less than 10 questions

and check your eligibility to file a

claim we've talked about the charges

we've talked about the rumors we've

talked about the developments well now

it is time to talk about the cold hard

evidence in the Sha Diddy Colmes

criminal case how strong is it how will

the defense fight against it is really

honestly the most important question we

have to ask in this whole case from a

legal point of view the evidence can the

prosecution meet their burden what do

they have to prove what for racketeering

conspiracy they have to prove that

Colmes had an agreement with others to

further a criminal Enterprise that

engaged in at least two criminal acts

although it's listed that Colmes and

others engaged in bribery arson

kidnapping Force labor sex trafficking

speaking of sex trafficking prosecutors

will have to prove count to that coms

use Force threats coercion to engage to

have victim one engage in commercial sex

acts that is the sex trafficking charge

the final count prosecutors have to

prove that coms transported people for

the purposes of commercial sex this is

transportation to engage in prostitution

and more specifically prosecutors alleg

that Colmes engaged in a camp cign of

abusing exploiting trafficking women for

years that he would use force that he

would force women to engage in freak

offs elaborate sexual performances with

male sex workers sometimes drugging

these people filming these events

without their knowledge really really

frightening stuff so the question is

what is the proof of that what will be

presented at a potential May 5th 2025

trial we'll see if that trial date

sticks I talked that about that a lot on

previous sidebars but to talk to me

about the evidence to help me talk about

the evidence I want to bring in fan

favorite evidence expert juw Epstein who

is the Edward D allbound professor of

Law and director of advocacy programs at

Temple University Beasley School of Law

so good to see you again really really

great to see you Jules really appreciate

you taking the time it's been a minute

we haven't even had the chance to talk

about the Sha Colmes case yet so before

we even get into some of the more Det

details of the specific evidence overall

what do you make of the

charges uh what I make of the charges

from an Evidence perspective is that

it's a nightmare situation for him and

what do I mean if he had only been

charged with one thing like the assault

at the elevator that everyone knows

about the government would not be

allowed to bring in

arson

Firearms a thousand bottles of loot

found in his home but as the charges

grow bigger and bigger and

bigger everything becomes you ready for

this word

relevant because they're all part of

this grand scheme

accusation so just in terms of the

volume of available evidence it grows

astronomically when you get a charge

like conspiracy or here corrupt

organizations it's a really really good

point that they have a lot of leeway to

introduce this evidence and by the way

just really quick from an evidentiary

point of view even though they're saying

that this alleged criminal conduct is

from 2008 to the present right could

they introduce evidence of him let's say

allegedly assaulting people in the '90s

would that be relevant to would they be

able to introduce something that old to

help prove racketeering um I was curious

about that because the reason I ask is

so many of his lawsuits that he's facing

and we don't know if those accusers are

going to be um testifying in this trial

but a lot of it concerns conduct from

the 90s the early 2000s it predates when

prosecutors said that the time frame

they're looking at you think there's a

way that prosecutors could introduce

that evidence so I hate to do this but

give you the qualified maybe as an

answer that's fine let me tell you why

normally we try people for what they're

accused of not for what they did in the

past because what they did in the past

is sort of a who you are or who you were

as opposed to did you do this okay so if

I'm charged with assault in 2024

no one should hear that I didn't assault

in

2019 right that unless it's the same

person or with some Link in a case like

this number one the government might

play it conservatively saying we don't

need to because we're going to have so

much anyway why risk an appell at court

saying hey you went too far however

depending on the defense if the defense

says for example oh these were in

coerced sexual encounters everybody was

happy to be involved then the government

might be allowed to bring in someone

from 2004 who said I was in that kind of

encounter it was not consensual it was

coerced in the law we call that a non-ar

purpose in other words that that other

act 5 years ago 8 years ago

10 years ago doesn't just show oh you're

a bad guy in this case but it actually

has a link it explains motive or plan or

intent so again you'd have to read for

example those other

lawsuits if they involved what is it

called freakouts right freakouts yep

freak offs forgive me I'm an old man

okay freak off you shouldn't know what a

freak off is in general en but that's

just a separate happy to have that be

the case all right um right if it was

similar at some point a judge might

say I'll let it in or I'll only let it

in if the

defense says it wasn't that way if you

think back okay Infamous trials Bill

Cosby Bill Cosby was accused of

assaulting one woman the Tri judge let

in three other

women me too to say this pattern

happened I'm not saying that's a Perfect

Analogy but that illustrates how

sometimes even old conduct may be deemed

admissible that's a good point that's a

really really good point okay so now I

want to ask you about this um search

warrants now prosecutors have indicated

that they have obtained a lot of

evidence that was seized through search

warrants this is of col's properties in

LA and Miami when they were raided back

in March and also What They seized on

comes and his co-conspirators on their

person and I have to imagine that's

probably their phones talk to me um and

by the way just to as we say this in a

letter to the court the prosecution

indicated on October 7th 2024 the

government made its first production of

discovery which included among other

things a complete set of search warrants

in the case meaning this was handed over

to the defense so defense council is

going to be looking through all these

warrants what was used to obtain this

evidence this I imagine is their first

line of attack attack the search

warrants because right if you attach the

search warrants maybe a lot of this

evidence doesn't come in how do they do

it

so it's hard to do because a search

warrant simply has to be based on

probable cause which means a fair

probability that evidence of a crime is

in location

X so anyone would read what we call the

Affidavit of probable cause that's where

the law enforcement agent spells out I

am swearing under oath that here are the

facts we've gathered that give us the

belief that

stuff evidence and it doesn't have to be

Criminal

stuff in other words Lube is not

criminal but it's corroborative of these

claims that evidence is in the place we

believe it to

be when a defense looks at a search

warrant they first look to say does it

meet that probable probability test

number two is the search warrant

overb okay does it um ask too much you

know in other words if there's probable

cause for a did they say but we'd like

to search for BC and D even if the

warrant is valid on its face then did

you execute it properly did you look in

places you weren't supposed to look did

you seize things you had no right to

seeds so that's standard in any Criminal

case from the most insignificant and I

don't want to say anyone's criminal

charge is ever insignificant but minor

charge uh to the most

serious let's talk about let's say the

search warrants are not there's no

ground to attack the evidence is coming

in at least on that front I want to talk

about the digital evidence and to be

clear as we discussed this evidence a

lot of this what I'm about to say comes

from the prosecution's letter to the

court when it was regarding bail of Shan

Colmes he's been denied bail twice he's

it to a higher court so in this bail

letter from when Colmes was first

arrested the prosecutors write the

electronic evidence is similarly vast

the government has sought and obtained

numerous search warrants for such

evidence in addition to obtaining

evidence voluntarily from certain

victims and Witnesses setting aside

devices seized in connection with the

defendant's arrest the government has

obtained over 90 cell phones laptops and

cloud storage accounts as well as of

over 30 other electronic and storage

devices such as hard drives thumb drives

cameras a surveillance system this

electronic data comes from the defendant

himself as well as co-conspirators

victims and Witnesses and Chronicles

much of the defendant's criminal

activity as it occurs so Jules what can

we expect from that kind of digital

evidence and we're talking you know I

think his phones and his iCloud accounts

were also sent to the defense as

well

so let me dial it back once

second if we're all in a conspiracy

let's say there are five of us and each

of us has their cell phones and

computers and Cloud accounts

seized I can only complain about the

seizure of mine so he will have no basis

to say oh you shouldn't have searched

co-conspirator 2 or gotten the phone of

co-conspirator 3 we call that standing

that he has no standing to say my rights

were violated so the more people who

have

videos um text messages on their

devices there's no constitutional ground

for him to say oh that should be

suppressed it's all going to be about

what's on there does it pertain to the

charges does it have extraneous stuff

like people using cocaine at an event

unrelated to any of this okay people

talking about sex stuff in a totally

different context so every

single video or message or whatever is

going to be scrutinized by the defense

the prosecution and and the judge to say

does it linked to this case but I'm

imagining that the that there are a lot

of how shall we say video captures of

various

activities um and and if I may just do

one more thing assuming the judge says

yeah this is all

pertinent the judge has to make a couple

of other

decisions one is so much too much in

other words it's like piling on in

football and the second is is some of it

too

inflammatory that they say look we

shouldn't let a jury see that maybe

we'll let the jury see five

representative takes not 500 takes that

that that's a great point because in

this letter they the government writes

the evidence against the defendant which

would be made public a trial includes

substantial evidence that is highly

sensitive and has the potential to sign

significantly and negatively impact the

defendant's reputation for example

dozens of video recordings created by

the defendant of freak offs with victims

so you have to wonder is a jury going to

be seeing these multiple videos of freak

offs and how are they introduce that

evidence and and what would the defense

be would they say I mean again that that

it feels like that's going to be a key

piece of evidence in this case how it's

going to be presented how much of it's

going to be presented and what the

defense respons to it I think is an

interesting question as well so going to

the last what will the defense response

be it's going to be one of two

things these video captures are only a

small portion of an evening so they

don't really capture it fairly right any

two minutes of my behavior right you

might say oh look at Jewels until you

see the greater context and then you'd

say oh it actually looks different I

think much more seriously and they've

already forecast this in some statements

in court that have been uh repeated in

the media is that this was adult

consensual Behavior so they look at the

tapes they come on they go but but

here's the and I was just talking about

this before that let's say there's drug

use let's say there's male prostitutes I

mean for example male male sex workers

in the letter it says victim testimony

regarding freak offs is at times

corroborated by other witness testimony

Communications with the defendant and

Commercial sex workers travel records

Hotel records videos of the freak offs

records reflecting or indicating payment

if you ask me right now sitting here

Jules I think it's going to be very hard

for Shawn Colmes to fight the Third

charge transportation to engage in

prostitution that he wasn't bringing in

commercial sex workers so if these freak

offs are now visible we see them or the

jury sees them does he deny that they're

sex workers does he say does he deny

those are drugs does he admit certain

details of it but says there's no

threats here there's no physical Force

no one's being coerced into this I mean

it feels like there has to be a little

bit of admission and a little bit of

denial if these freak offs if they

really do have the videos of the freak

offs if they have that and proof people

were paid and flown across state lines

and there's a pretty clear federal

statute that says can't do that then

it's either okay I'll take the fall on

that

right or my subordinates were doing that

part I was unaware I just said hey let's

have a party tomorrow yeah and I was

blissfully unaware I'm not suggesting

that was or wasn't the case but those

are really the only two options and

right in a criminal

case a lawyer has to really spend time

to get the trust of their client and

then at some point have the and we call

it the come to Jesus talk it's let's sit

down and let's do a realistic

assessment instead of just oh we'll win

everything what can't we win why can't

we win it how do we play this

accordingly and I shouldn't even say

play like it's a game but what is our

response again I'm not an ex expert in

Interstate transportation for commercial

sex purposes right um and whether there

is a defense that it's pornographic

movie making which is allowed I don't

know but the closer you get to they've

got us called onch charge

X then you have to figure out how you

play that can you stand up at a trial

and say members of the jury there's no

secret

yeah we broke the law in this way but

they've gone way beyond that that's

something sometimes what people do Jules

I apologize for this but I have to ask

you how relevant this piece of evidences

you talked about it before but in the b

letter we all learn that the prosecution

says the evidence consists of to show

the freak offs happened over a thousand

bottles of baby oil and personal

lubricant now I'm curious how relevant

this is going to be to the case and how

important it is because com's attorney

Mark agilo said yeah he said in a

statement after the arrest Sean comes

Buys in bulk at Costco Costco actually

came out with a statement saying we

don't sell this what value do you think

that this evidence has the because it's

been there's a lot of this is a

salacious detail but how important are

the bottles of baby oil and lubricant to

this case so I hate to say this but

until we see the Freak off

films and see if that people are

spraying you know baby oil and lubricant

left and right um to be relevant

something has to be about this helpful

the tiniest bit of smidgen it has have a

tendency to prove a fact this supports

the

fact maybe not the baby or certainly the

lubricant right that there was a lot of

sex going on how important that is in

the greater scheme I don't know does the

government need it I don't know might a

smart prosecutor say why screw around

and use that precisely because it's just

this luid

detail um I don't know or hold it in

reserve until we hear what the defense

is so lots of options I will go from

what it could be a questionable piece

piece of evidence to what I think is

arguably one of the most important

pieces of evidence and you mentioned it

before the 2016 video of Cassandra

Ventura reportedly being beaten by Sha

comes it was published by CNN few months

ago um it changed the whole Narrative of

this case I think that was for a lot of

people the first real proof the first

real evidence they had of what the claim

were against Shawn Colmes that he was

violent that he was abusive to see that

with our own eyes to see Shawn Colmes

two days later on Instagram and

essentially admit that was him that to

me feels like the most important piece

of evidence I'm curious how you think

it's going to prove the different claims

and I and also the defense would be I

imagine and this is something that's

been put put forward by Shan col's

defense attorneys this was a domestic

spat this is not evidence of sex

trafficking or racketeering so walk me

through what where you how that video is

going to play into the case and how the

defense can fight against

it it's probably going to play into the

case depending on whether she will

testify and give it context if she

doesn't testify a judge and no one else

from that day says oh we're having this

crazy thing and the fight was about forc

prostitution and that's when she tried

if you have no cont context maybe it has

no place in the case if someone whether

it is the victim or someone else who was

there can say I can tell you the

backstory of what this was this was not

a fight over the laundry bill this was

not a fight over who's taking out the

trash or who spent $50,000 on something

we shouldn't have this was a fight over

what the the government is alleging it's

really important because it's not just

someone saying it happened it's our

seeing it happen in real

time yeah yeah and um I know the

government excuse me I know his defense

attorneys are saying the government

leaked that video and they want an

evidentiary hearing to prove that it was

leaked by the government by the

Department of Homeland Security who

raided the homes and they're saying it

the by law right if they can prove the

government actually leaked it they could

potentially get that video suppressed

and it doesn't come into the trial

right so I I looked into that a little

bit when I first saw it I'm not sure the

law is as strong on their side as they

say but I'm not going to say I'm expert

on that if you want to do another show

I'll do some research um regardless of

whether it can be suppressed the

government's not supposed to leak things

um I'm just not sure that the remedy

is a jury doesn't get to see it we could

pick a jury believe it or not I know

this is shocking to you not everyone

watches your show and not everyone

follows the news it's a horrible

statement and so there are a lot of

people who actually wouldn't have seen

it um so it's sort of a no harm no foul

if you didn't pollute

the jury pool I'm not sure why it gets

suppressed that's fair that's fair um

let me ask you this before I let you go

uh I think this

case either Rises or Falls with the

testimony of the the alleged victims the

witnesses the potential co-conspirators

there's been a lot of talk about whether

or not people have taken deals with the

government to testify against sha Colmes

and I think it really comes down to a

lot of it this witness testimony

talk to me about what you're looking for

when you when we hear the testimony of

these alleged victims when we hear the

testimony of these witnesses to this

conduct to the people maybe within sha

colm's Inner Circle how is that going to

how can we expect that to be portrayed

at the trial and how do you think the

defense is going to have an opportunity

to cross-examine these

Witnesses so I want to break it into

categories if there are other primarily

women who say he beat me this me that me

Etc the defense is going to be looking

to see is there any proof of that is

there any Behavior inconsistent with

that like oh you say beat you in January

in February you flew to Tahiti with him

not saying both couldn't exist um are

they go They're going to be looking to

say are you someone who brought a civil

suit do you have a financial motive to

say that for the people who are the

alleged

co-conspirators the defense is going to

have to figure out are they motivated by

fear of their own prosecution could this

be that indeed the underlings the the

folks who worked for him were doing

criminal acts and actually shielding him

from it but when you get caught you have

to blame somebody higher up that would

be the defense argument at the end of

the day each of those will

be those are attacks we can

anticipate the value of them drops

disproportionately when the strength of

the video evidence goes higher in other

words if there's stuff on video where

he's saying certain things doing certain

things that Pro the

co-conspirators

claims the fact that they're trying to

cut a deal to save themselves is less

important everybody's guilty but I'm

trying to be helping the government

helps me but who cares because it's all

on tape well listen Jules I mean this is

exactly what we were looking for we

wanted to break down what the evidence

could be we still don't know exactly

what it could be but I think we have a

really good sense of it Epstein thank

you so much for coming on really

appreciate your terrific insight as

always good seeing you good seeing you

my friend take care all right everybody

that's all we have for you right now

here on sidebar thank you so much for

joining us and as always please

subscribe on Apple podcast Spotify

YouTube wherever you get your podcasts

I'm Jesse Weber speak to you next time

[Music]